Debates of April 12th, 1999

Kosovo

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there is unease within NATO among some of the 19 member countries. Countries like Italy, Greece and the Czech republic are committed, but there has been a certain trepidation in their commitment. The commitment of ground troops would further strain what is already a commitment with significant concern and reservation.

Relative to the issue of voting in this House to determine whether we should send ground troops, the issue of committing to air strikes is quite different for many Canadians than the issue of committing to ground troops. There are Canadians who feel it is appropriate that we are committed to participate through NATO in air strikes, but they would question our participation with ground troops.

The hon. member opposite suggested that my position on this was foolish. It is not as foolish as the position of the current Prime Minister at the time of the Persian Gulf crisis when he said that it was all right to send Canadian forces into the Persian Gulf, but it was very important that they all come back the first time a shot was fired, which was at best illogical, and at worst ridiculous and idiotic.

It is important to reflect on what the Prime Minister said earlier today. He said that we did not have to have votes in the House of Commons about these issues. In fact, it was more democratic to give members the opportunity to talk, but not to vote. I suggest that the Prime Minister deliver that message to Canadians and suggest to them that in the next election they would be much better off if they did not have a vote but were given a few minutes to talk. They would not be allowed to elect anybody, but they would be allowed to talk about it. That was the Prime Minister's suggestion earlier. The logical corollary would be that we would have 30 million Canadians in the next election talking but no one actually voting.

These are complex issues and I really believe that we owe it to Canadians to debate them and vote on them in the House of Commons. In fact, there are some countries, prior to intervention, which require voting on the commitment of military resources and ground troops. I do not understand the rationale for the Liberal opposition to democracy on this or many other fronts.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank members for the opportunity to share with them a few moments to reflect, discuss and consider Canada's participation in a very sad and tragic conflict in a region many of us know as eastern Europe.

I share with all Canadians, especially the constituents of my northern Ontario riding of Algoma—Manitoulin, a great sense of sadness that a century, indeed a millennium, is ending with war.

It may seem that this conflict is unique. Unfortunately it is one of many conflicts ongoing around the world. It is, however, at this point in time, in terms of air power, manpower and the involvement of armed forces personnel, the largest conflict that we are seeing on our television screens, hour after hour, day in and day out. Like the conflicts in Northern Ireland, in Africa and in many other parts of the world there is no easy solution. There is no simple set of reasons which brought the players to this place in time.

I am no expert in history. Like many Canadians I am probably not aware of all the facts. In this case we have to search back hundreds and hundreds of years to find many of the reasons for the conflict today.

As average Canadians and as we attempt as members of parliament to represent our constituents as best we can, we see the tragedy unfolding in the present. It is difficult for us to fully appreciate what brought the players, the stakeholders in this tragic conflict, to this point in time.

Before saying too much more, I would like to join my colleagues in commending our Canadian armed personnel that are involved directly in the Balkans or are in Canada providing very necessary support. Our hearts, our best wishes, our prayers go out to all of them.

I also want to say a few words commending many constituents in my riding. I think of the Killens family on Manitoulin Island, the Timeriskis on Elliot Lake, Reeve Aquino in Wawa and others. Those Canadians have picked up the phone, contacted their local service clubs, or have taken different initiatives to express in one way or another their support and their willingness to help the hundreds of thousands of refugees displaced in this conflict.

We live in a beautiful country. For the most part we live in relative comfort. It is easy for us to dismiss and not fully understand the degree of suffering that is going on. I include myself in that comment. It behoves us to make an extra effort to realize that hundreds of thousands of people have been removed from homes in which they have lived for generations, from communities where they have invested their lives. Their parents are from there and their ancestors are from there, yet they have been forcibly removed and taken to strange places and camps beyond their borders.

It is difficult for us to understand the deep sense of loss the refugees are feeling. When Canadians reach out and offer their assistance they are doing so with an appreciation that we are fortunate. Whatever Canada and Canadians can do to help to make sure those who are displaced can find some measure of comfort while this conflict continues is important.

The news tends to focus on what the leaders on all sides are doing. Far be it from me to understand the thinking of President Milosevic and his cohorts. I cannot understand how one human being can act such as we have seen toward another.

There are apologists on all sides. I am sure Mr. Milosevic has provided many reasons for what he has done, but what I see most of all is denial of the fact that at the grassroots it is innocent people who are being hurt.

There are innocent people on all sides. If average Serbian citizens who work in the restaurants and in the factories knew all the facts, I do not believe they could possibly support Mr. Milosevic. They too are victims in a way. They have seen conflict over many years. Certainly there are innocent victims in the Kosovo region.

If average citizens are for the most part innocent victims of what is going on, how can we as a civilized nation in any way do anything but participate in as forceful and as useful a way as possible? To those who would say we should not be participating in NATO, I suggest that had we chosen not to participate and NATO could not intervene in air attacks there would be no end in sight. It may seem even today that there is no end in sight but at least there is hope. Had NATO not decided to become involved, I believe Mr. Milosevic would have not only continued his atrocities in the way we have seen but even more so. I would worry not only about Montenegro but in fact the destabilization of the entire region.

I realize there is no vote at the end of this debate. It is difficult to debate the kind of action we should take in a conflict situation, but these debates are extremely important for Canadians, for all parliamentarians and for the leadership of the government who after all were duly elected to lead. These debates are of great assistance to the Prime Minister, to cabinet and in fact to all of us. They help to make sure this place has a sense of what Canadians are thinking from coast to coast.

I support Canada's involvement in NATO and the need for air strikes. If we accept what we see on the news it may be questionable whether we are seeing any progress. Is there a perfect solution to this conflict? I doubt it. We have to try to come out with the best solution from among many terrible solutions. If it takes a massive air offensive to destroy the military machine of President Milosevic and his so-called government, that is what we must do. We must shut down his ability to continue destabilizing not only citizens of his own region but those of a much wider area.

When it comes to the question of whether Canada should participate in a ground offensive, it certainly raises the stakes. I am not any kind of military expert. I doubt there are many here. We are just members of parliament trying to do our best to understand a very complex situation. My intuition is that it will be inevitable, that a ground offensive of some sort will be necessary.

Based on the Rambouillet negotiations it was hoped that at some point in time there would be an agreement that the NATO alliance, the United Nations and other bodies would create a force to essentially keep the peace.

As the days and weeks go by and we attempt to understand the thinking of President Milosevic, I conclude that we are not dealing with a leader who goes by any rules of engagement that we would ever understand. The use of deceit and manoeuvres designed to manipulate have convinced me that as much as we all want a negotiated settlement, the probability of that is not very high. As much as all of my colleagues and I would shudder at the thought of sending ground troops, Canadian military men and women to this region, it may be inevitable.

We are looking at a situation where hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo have been removed to places outside the region or into the mountains. Under the current circumstances they cannot return to their homes. If we believe as a member of NATO and as a civilized nation that ethnic Albanian Kosovars deserve the opportunity to go back to their homes and to rebuild, we must be involved, because Mr. Milosevic will not allow the creating of space to which they can return. Sadly that may mean space will need to be created on the ground by foot soldiers, by infantry. That is a dangerous situation.

There is no perfect solution. We cannot turn the clock back. Turning the clock back would mean going back hundreds and hundreds of years. It cannot be done. Emotions are running too high. We could look at the conflict in Northern Ireland, which is a little closer to home and maybe a little easier to understand. The emotions and feelings of nationalism running as deeply as we see in the Balkans, Ireland and elsewhere are not erased overnight. It will take years, decades or longer, maybe well beyond our own lifetimes, for there to be real solutions.

That does not mean we should sit back and allow the so-called ethnic cleansing to continue. As we close this century it is an absurd thought that we should sit back. We have done that before in this century and there was too much loss of life, dignity and civility.

As much as I would be reluctant to support any further engagement of Canadians, I feel it may be necessary. If it becomes necessary given all the facts, my constituents and I would support it. We would hope there would be no loss of life at all but realistically we have to be prepared for anything.

The air war up to this moment has resulted essentially in zero losses on the NATO side. There has been loss of life in Serbia and in Kosovo, the vast majority of it perpetrated by President Milosevic and a small number as a consequence of NATO's attempts to shut down the government and the regime of Mr. Milosevic.

As a civilized nation we owe it to our children and grandchildren to end conflict, but sometimes to end conflict it is necessary to engage in conflict. It seems oxymoronic that we must fight to end fighting, but a glance at history will show that is too often the case. We cannot avoid it simply because we wish it to go away.

I believe there may be a silver lining to this very dark cloud. This conflict is so public and so in our face because of the media coverage. Even though it is far away, it is still close to home. Maybe this conflict will provide us with the impetus to reconsider how we as a collection of nations allied for peace can involve ourselves in conflicts in areas which themselves are sovereign.

How do we learn from this experience where to draw the line on sovereignty? How do we know exactly when to intervene in a regional conflict when it may mean, as it has here, crossing into another country and interfering in a constructive way with a government in order to bring about peace?

I do not suggest that I have all the answers. Hopefully at least the worst of this conflict will be resolved in the next few weeks. I hope that in the wake of this conflict, NATO and all the member nations of the UN will pick through the bones of this conflict in an attempt to achieve some degree of wisdom. If and when this should happen again, we will know better how to resolve these conflicts and in the best way for all the stakeholders.

In conclusion, our hearts go out to the refugees. Our hearts go out to all the innocent victims of the conflict in this region, including those innocent people in Serbia who themselves do not support their own government in its ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Our hearts go out to those refugees who have been removed from their homes and who now sleep under plastic tarps, if they even have a plastic tarp.

I applaud our government, all Canadians and the relief agencies in their efforts to bring food, shelter, medicine and supplies to those in need at this time.

It is a tough issue, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for this opportunity to say a few words.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin with a few comments, then put a question to my colleague across the way.

This is the first time I take part in this debate. I must say that it feels strange to rise in this House at 4.20 a.m. If today's debate is one society must hold, I find it somewhat odd that it should take place during the night since this is a time when most people are sleeping. I find it rather ironic that such a debate be held during the night.

The other problem I have with this debate is that I find it difficult to talk with conviction about a topic that is so mind-boggling. What is going on in Europe right now is ethnic cleansing. I find it easier to understand when we talk about economic war. Tonight I was watching a report by Céline Galipeau, who was just back from the war zone. She said that even the local people have trouble understanding what is going on.

Today, as parliamentarians, we are supposed to debate something that is happening halfway across the world and that even the people involved have trouble understanding.

I must say that this is far from restoring my faith in humanity, particularly when this year marked the 50th anniversary of the charter of rights. We have recently also marked the 50th anniversary of the second world war, with its memories of Auschwitz and so on. Those in my generation were always told “Remember these events, so that you do not have to witness anything like it in your lifetime.”

A few years later, here we are, witnessing scenes exactly like those of 50 years ago. This is unbelievable. We must not forget to speak, at least to say that there is something incomprehensible in it all. Perhaps it is because of my young age that I speak this way this evening. It may be, but it is also because I think there are many people throughout the world who have trouble understanding all this.

I have a duty today as a parliamentarian, along with all the other members of this House, to talk military tactics, when I have no clue as to how things work when one wants to intervene to change a situation somewhere.

It has to be done, however. This debate is essential. As parliamentarians, we must nevertheless be cautious because we have only limited information available to us. I have to form my opinions on this situation like most other people in the world, by listening to the news and watching the major television networks.

We have seen that foreign journalists have been expelled from Kosovo. We must therefore form our opinions on a conflict that is hard to understand to begin with, on the basis of a rather limited amount of information. What I would like to ask my colleague across the floor is this: Does he believe that parliamentarians have the pertinent information required for holding such a debate?

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I appreciate my hon. colleague's speech, but I would like to know if he has a question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member was in the very act of asking his question. I was allowing him to go on a little because there are only two members rising on questions and comments and we do have 10 minutes in this case. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Reform Party is quite right. I put the question. Naturally, I believe in the importance of this debate. But I put the following question to him: does he think that parliamentarians have information that is relevant and essential to such a debate? I raise the matter of the quality of the debate. I do not question the need for it.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe for a moment that we have all the facts. I do not believe it is possible in anything as complex as this conflict that we could ever have all the facts.

I agree with the hon. member that much of the information we get is from the news networks. By their nature, coming from the western side so to speak, there may be a degree of western bias. That bias is mostly the result of the fact that journalists, as the hon. member has suggested, have been expelled from the principal region of conflict, from Kosovo.

Even though we may not have all the facts, I do believe that the journalists involved in interviewing refugees and others are attempting to glean as much of the true story as is possible. At best, we have available to us partial information. But when partial information comes from many directions and it is pieced together, it is possible to say with a reasonable degree of certainty that what is happening is actually taking place.

When a small child is about to tip a pot of boiling water from the stove onto his or her face, you do not stop to consider that it is gravity that is going to cause that pot to fall. You look at exactly what is happening and the potential for serious harm to the child.

In this case there is much that we do not know directly, but we have seen enough and know enough to act, and to act firmly and fairly. Even though Canada's reputation as a peacemaker and a peacekeeper may be compromised in the minds of some, in my mind it is not in the least.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech.

He supports the NATO involvement in Kosovo and feels that the situation has deteriorated to the point that troops may be required. If we are to commit troops, is the member prepared to see them continue on the aggressive action that has been taken to move all the way to Belgrade and remove President Milosevic? Or is he feeling that the troops should only be committed to alleviate the suffering and the humanitarian need of the refugees that have been displaced?

It would seem to me that we have started the war. We are the ones who have done the bombing, which is a fairly aggressive act. If we are to commit ground troops, are we going to continue on in the same vein of being aggressive toward the Serbian nation, or is the humanitarian relief the focus of committing troops?

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to clarify my own thinking on the subject. If, and I want to underline the little word if, it becomes necessary for NATO to involve troops on the ground, I do not believe we should be entering Serbia proper, Serbia proper meaning excluding Kosovo. We should continue the air offensive there as part of ongoing efforts to shut down Mr. Milosevic's military machine.

The member used the right word. Ground troops, if needed, would be undertaking humanitarian involvement, if it is possible to have a humanitarian military involvement in Kosovo. They would clear space, as I said in my speech, to make room for the Kosovars, the ethnic Albanians, to return to their homes. Our ground action would be limited to Kosovo, to push back or arrest, if we can do that, the military gangs operating in that province.

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette.

I rise in the early hours of this day to speak to the growing troubles that we now see in Kosovo. The subject of war troubles me very deeply. This is not a topic that I nor I am sure anyone else in the House takes very lightly. Not only are the lives of people in those countries on the line, but indeed Canadian lives are also on the line.

I wish to begin by paying tribute to our troops who are over there. I wish for their personal safety and their safe return home to their loved ones as soon as possible. It is perhaps unfortunate that the government motion did not also include the phrase “the safe return of our Canadian forces personnel”. We ought not to forget them at this particular time.

It bothers me greatly, and the Liberal government should be ashamed, that it has taken Canada so far down this path of aggression without any authority from the House of Commons. We are at war and until now have not even debated the issue.

I must ask the simple question: What is our intention in Kosovo? Are we going to attempt to make peace or are we going to be peacemakers when the opportunity arises? Obviously, there is no peace at this time.

Canada has placed the lives of Canadian men and women at great risk. These men and women are prepared to go where we, as the elected officials of their country, ask them to go. Again I must ask the question: What is our intention in Kosovo? What are we asking our men and women to do? When we ask them to do something, are we ensuring that they have the tools to do the job?

The motion that we are debating states:

That this House take note of the continuing human tragedy in Kosovo—

I have no difficulty in adding my voice of support in the recognition of this terrible situation, but what does take note mean? Are we being asked to recognize the plight of the refugees by assisting them through the provision of food and other basic necessities? If so, then of course the government has my full support.

Are we being asked to right the terrible wrongs that are being forced upon the refugees? I have concerns as to how to go about this and, therefore, whether we should go about this or not. In a region that has known hostilities for over 500 years, is it possible for any of us sitting very safely in this House of parliament to fully understand, know and determine the rights and the wrongs of the situation?

The forceful removal of people from their homes is of course never right. Depriving people of their identification and property is never right. The murder of innocent people is never right.

The motion continues to state:

—and the government's determination to work with the international community in order to resolve the conflict and promote a just political settlement for Kosovo—

Like many government motions, this is sufficiently vague enough to mean a lot of different things. If this means sending in ground troops, I am opposed and I have strong concerns. If this means that the Canadian forces will play a role in maintaining the peace, I am willing to support it.

The motion concludes “that leads to the safe return of the refugees”. I am also in support of this. I think one of the biggest questions that must be considered with this is what are the refugees going home to. When will we know that the NATO forces have fully achieved their objective and that it is sustainable? How long do we expect our troops to be in Kosovo?

There was a time when Canadians generally were very proud of our international role in peacekeeping. We sent our troops to some of the most difficult places in the world and we did a good job of keeping warring factions apart; places like Cyprus and the Middle East. We were not involved then in the invasion of a sovereign nation.

However, in the last few years Canadians have begun to view our Canadian Armed Forces in a different light. That is partially due to the inability of the government to clearly articulate to the Canadian people what it believes the military role is.

Because of this indecisiveness, our troops have been underpaid, undermanned and underequipped. They have had to work with obsolete equipment, live in substandard housing and moonlight at other jobs in order to make financial ends meet. Couple this with scandals like the Somalia affair, the treatment of women in the forces and moral is at an all time low.

Throughout this decade and in the midst of all of these circumstances, we persist in sending our troops into no win international situations. Instead of being the peacekeepers of which we can be proud, we are forcing them to be aggressors tainted with the results of killing and wounding innocent civilians.

Let us look at the record. We are part of NATO. In order to fulfill our commitment to this organization, we have been dragged into international conflicts on the coattails of American foreign policy. Let us not make any mistake about it; the Americans are the ones who are pushing these international war operations today. The record is not good.

In the early years of this decade, we sent our airplanes into Kuwait and Iraq as part of the desert storm operation. The goal was to stop Saddam Hussein in his mad long rush to conquer Kuwait and its oil rich territory. However, what really happened? We unleashed all the power of modern warfare against him and when victory was in our grasp and it was possible to eliminate this awful dictator, we stopped on his doorstep, turned our backs and hightailed it home. Now we wait until he builds up his war machine to continue his terror and seven years later go back in and do it all over again. It does not seem to make any sense.

Either these operations must have clearer objectives that will once and for all destroy the war machines of these madmen dictators, or we do not go in at all and we let history take its course.

We now have a similar situation with Serbia and the madman Milosevic. No one condones his ethnic cleansing of Albanians, but this hatred between the races has been going on for centuries. It will not be changed by the dropping of bombs but by a dramatic change in human hearts.

Once again, what is the objective here? Is it to get rid of Milosevic and his henchmen in order to stop the ethnic cleansing? Do we really think this war against a sovereign nation will change anything? Has U.S. foreign policy determined that it will use the NATO disguise to go so far and then back off only to come in another day or year to flex its muscles again? Are Canadian troops being used as pawns in the hands of the Americans in a war exercise that does not seem to have a clear objective?

What exactly is it that we are trying to achieve? I believe these are importance questions that are being asked by many Canadians. We in this parliament deserve to give them an answer.

In the meantime, Canadians are killing innocent civilians, children and young people. We are bombing non-military targets. I know it is unintentional but it still is happening. War is hell and these things will always happen when we engage our troops in it.

We are committing our sometimes under strength, underpaid, ill-equipped troops to a war that I do not think we can win unless we are prepared to pull out all the stops. We all know the risks of that today. In the nuclear age, we are only just one button push away from world war III, its horrors and the possibility of the end of the human race that this would bring.

Is that what we want our Canadians troops involved in? Not this Canadian. Keep our troops for the time-honoured and world respected role of peacekeepers. Do not turn them into aggressors waging war against civilians. Do not send our army or any ground troops for that matter into this conflict in Kosovo. This is not Kuwait. It is a mountainous country where armies can hole up in the hills for ages fighting guerrilla warfare. The second world war proved this. This conflict would be protracted, ugly and covered with blood and could well take us into world war III.

There has to be a better way. Are there no decent Serbians who know the truth about Milosevic? They cannot tolerate him forever. Could we not expect that they would somehow get rid of him and his henchmen; that truth would prevail and that right would win out? There has to be another option.

I do not believe that what we are doing is the answer. Canadians should not be there in their present role. We are not the policemen of the world. Let us always be known as peacekeepers and peacemakers. Our military reputation is already tarnished in the world community.

Along with many Canadians, I long for the day that is described in the Bible, a day when the lamb lies down with the lion, a day when we shall beat our swords into ploughshares and man will know war no more. Until that day comes, we must work for peace. We must be viewed by the world as peacemakers and not aggressors.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, regardless of how we got to where we are, I wonder if the member understands that Mr. Milosevic does not appear to be using any normal rules of engagement in this conflict and, in particular, in the efforts of his regime to remove the ethnic Albanians from Kosovo. Would he not agree that it would be in the definition of peacemaking to go into the Kosovo region to arrest or at least push back the gangs, the henchmen of the Milosevic regime who are perpetrating his evil designs?

If there is no agreement in the near future, would the member not agree that it might be reasonable and necessary to use ground troops? Would it not be in the order of peacemaking to arrest or push those henchmen out and make room for the resettlement of the Kosovars in their homeland?

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there are any rules in war. When we get involved in a situation like this anything can happen. We unleash a terror and an evil in the hearts of men that only ends up in the slaughter of many people. That is the lesson of history.

What Canadians have to decide is whether we as a country really want our troops doing that kind of thing. Is that what we want our troops known for? Personally, as a Canadian I do not want our troops to be known in this way. We have a good reputation as peacemakers. We can fulfill our NATO commitments and be the peacemakers. If the other countries of the world want to be aggressors, let them be, but let us not, just for the sake of going along with the crowd, be like everybody else. Let us be peacemakers the way we have been for years.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the debate has certainly gone on for a fairly long time but it is an important debate to have. While we appreciate the opportunity to speak, we wish this was something our country did not have to face.

There certainly has been a variance of opinion. It is good that our members have an opportunity to express their points of view as they reflect the wishes of their constituents and others. We have also heard a wide range of ideas and opinions here.

This debate has sparked a deeper philosophical debate across this country. This occurs when there is an armed conflict where clearly, as in this instance, wrongs are being perpetrated against individuals in another part of the world. It is clear that what Mr. Milosevic is undertaking in Serbia and Kosovo is wrong and that is the basis of this debate tonight.

Individuals across this land are questioning NATO's right to get involved? They are questioning the fact that innocent people are being injured and killed. Yes, that is true. As a member of the government pointed out not long ago, there are innocent people on both sides of this conflict. Civilians who are trying to live their lives may not be fully aware of the terrible things that are happening in their country.

There are individuals in our country as well who when taking one side or another perhaps have not stopped to fully look at the whole situation and to look at what is involved in this kind of conflict. Historically the conflict in this region has gone on for many hundreds of years. There is deep bitterness and resentment of one side to another. That has continued on.

We are not looking in this debate to solve or to assign blame to that situation because when a wrong has been committed by more than one party then both are in the wrong. There have been atrocities on both sides over the past hundreds of years.

We see a greater wrong being perpetrated now by Mr. Milosevic in the fact that he is killing innocent people. The term ethnic cleansing has been used quite a bit in the media and in this debate. It may be easier for us to talk about that term rather than about the atrocities it represents. Innocent people are being murdered simply because they belong to one particular group or another, because they belong to one religious group or another, because they are a particular minority within that area. That is simply wrong.

We have to stand up when something as wrong as this goes on. The often stated line that evil will flourish if good men do nothing is so true. I believe that to be the case in this situation. If good men and women do nothing, then evil will flourish. We cannot simply stand by and watch this happen a world away.

We may not have intervened in other areas when perhaps we should have. We do not want to second guess that. But we know now and the fact is clear that Mr. Milosevic is doing wrong. It is a clear and simple fact. We must stand to oppose that. That is what we are here to debate today.

We think about the refugees, the over 500,000 individuals who have been displaced from their homes. Even for those refugees there is no going back in the same way after this conflict. There is no going back to their homeland with the same perspective or frame of reference after witnessing the horrors of war that have occurred.

The veterans within our own country who fought in World War II and in other conflicts are never the same people they once were after having engaged in that kind of conflict and having witnessed the kinds of things they have seen. I think of my own father, a veteran of World War II, and how that shaped his perspective. He was never the same person as he was before he participated in that conflict.

These events are terrible and awful. We would have hoped they had not happened but they have. In order to put an end to them, something needs to be done. Action needs to be taken. For that reason I support the involvement of the NATO forces, not flippantly because I know that in doing so individuals will lose their lives as some have already. It would be my hope and prayer that none of our own personnel would be lost in this.

It is a very deep and heavy question that weighs upon all of us should it come to a point in time where military troops are asked to be deployed in that area of Kosovo to further support the military action being taken. That deep and heavy question weighs on the hearts of all members in this place and a great number of Canadians across this land.

It would be my hope, should the day come where we are faced with the prospect of asking our young men and women to go into an armed conflict on the ground that we would have another debate, a full and open debate in this place and that we would be able to vote on whether or not to do that. I know that is one step further down the road. We do not know if that is going to happen and we hope and pray it does not.

Ultimately it is up to us in this place as the elected representatives of the country to have that debate, to have today's debate and to anticipate a further debate. It is our role as leaders in the country to anticipate events. We do not look ahead blindly, but anticipate the possibility of all eventualities in this kind of conflict.

It is up to us to consult with individuals in our ridings, to ask the hard questions and to look together in a non-partisan way for solutions to this issue particularly because it involves the lives of so many.

It is certainly a question that has been asked of me several times by different people in my own riding and by people on both sides of the issue. There are those who say yes, we should support the NATO actions, and those who say no, we should not. As legislators in this place, we have to weigh all that information. We have to ask those hard questions. We have to direct some hard questions toward the government on this issue.

I was quite surprised earlier today that the Prime Minister seemed to be somewhat reluctant to want to state that we would have a vote should we get to the point of deploying ground troops. I know that in other NATO countries there will be a debate. I cannot see the American forces being sent in without a debate in the congress, if not a debate in the senate. I would hope that would happen here as well.

Ultimately the objective of this NATO action is to stop the wrong, to stop the atrocities that are going on. That is the bottom line and the question that needs to be answered. It is for that reason we must have this debate. We must support our troops who are there and the NATO decision that has been made at this point regarding the air offensive, again for the reason of stopping the wrong that Mr. Milosevic is perpetrating against his own citizens.

We must stand. If we do not stand, if good men and women will not stand, then evil will continue to flourish. We cannot allow that to happen.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. I appreciate the comments he made.

The question I wish to put to him is well at the top of my own mind. What is the distinction, if any, between peacekeeping and peacemaking? Too many people use those words interchangeably. That is okay. It may be their interpretation of those words, that they are the same, but in my own mind they are different words.

If we go back a couple of thousand years, a great person referred to peacemakers as blessed. Blessed are the peacemakers.

Does the hon. member have an opinion, and I am sure he does, on what distinction, if any, can be made between peacekeeping and peacemaking? Would he agree that peacekeeping comes after peacemaking? When there is an armed standoff in a community or city, before there can be peace to be kept, the police may have to go make some peace. Then they will maintain the peace after.

I think this is where I am coming to in my own thinking on this. In the absence of a decision by Mr. Milosevic to make an agreement, we may have to go and make some peace. That is the essence of our debate. We understand fairly well Canada's role as a peacekeeper. What is Canada's role as a peacemaker?

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. It is a good question. He is right when he says that first of all peace must be made before we can keep the peace. He has asked about the distinction between peacemaking and peacekeeping.

We have tried to negotiate with Mr. Milosevic for a long period of time. Many people have tried to negotiate peace and it simply has not worked. As a result of that this action has been taken.

In many ways I would agree with my colleague on the government side that yes, we have to have peace before we can maintain the peace. In Mr. Milosevic's case, it seems to be that he will not negotiate. He does not understand or he has a different philosophical perspective about what it means to stop. It seems it is simply forceful actions that will show him, and that is what it will take to stop the atrocities he is perpetrating.

In essence that is what we must continue to do. Then after the fact hopefully a resolution will be found and peacekeeping troops will be deployed as they have been in other areas in that region.

The member asked a valid and very good question.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I was elected to represent Lotbinière in the House of Commons on June 2, 1997, I would not have thought that I would be asked to speak in the context of a world conflict.

We all recall operation desert storm in which the UN intervened in 1991 to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.

Today, April 13, 1999, at the dawn of the third millennium, another dictator, the Serbian president, is threatening peace, this time in Europe. For more than ten years, the president of Serbia, on pretext of defending the Serb minorities, invaded and fought a war in Bosnia, Croatia and, now, Kosovo.

We will recall the images of the war in Sarajevo the media broadcast to the world at the opening of the Olympic winter games in Lillehammer in 1994. The TV networks, in order to raise world awareness, showed the images of a jubilant people celebrating at the 1984 Olympic winter games.

Ten years later, the traditional fireworks had given way to the fireworks of Serb shelling and the bombs that destroyed 300 historical monuments in Dubrovnik, a city recognized by UNESCO for its historical beauty, and the city of Mostar, which I had the pleasure of visiting in 1988. It was a surprise to the tourists to discover such cultural variety in this lovely corner of the country.

It was impressive to see, in the same skyline, the minaret of a muslin mosque and the steeples of a catholic church and the onion-domed towers of an orthodox cathedral. Bosnians, Croats and Serbs were living together in peace. A few years later, this spectacular city was the target of Serb bombings.

I shudder when I see the images of suffering and destruction in this country, which we have been seeing on TV for the past three weeks. Long lines of Kosovar refugees fleeing their homeland, pursued by Serb soldiers, unfortunately remind us of the horrors of the second world war. Nobody would have thought Europe would have to endure the madness of yet another dictator.

Sixty years later, on the eve of the year 2000, NATO is faced with another warrior president, who harbours much hatred for a whole people, the people of Kosovo.

In 1993, acting in another professional capacity, I had the opportunity to chat with Martin Gray at the launching of one of his books. He told us he feared the worst for the Balkans. The decline of human values and the escalating ethnic conflicts in the former Yugoslavia were of great concern to him.

Referring to the horrors of the second world war he said “I saw men acting like animals, attacking women and children and decimating whole families”. Indeed the Kosovars, who are seeing Serb militiamen with such hatred in their hearts, are living through the same nightmare as Martin Gray and his loved ones.

If there is anyone who can bear witness to genocide, it is Martin Gray. If there is anyone who saw a barbaric army destroy his fellow citizens, it is Martin Gray.

In spite of the messages of this proponent of peace and of the numerous reports reminding us of the atrocities of World War II, we waited. Our military action was limited and we let the Serbian president implement his sinister plan.

Sure, peacekeepers were sent to Bosnia to maintain peace, but it was too late. The damage had been done. Cities and villages had been destroyed. Tens of thousands of civilians had been killed. And yet, President Milosevic is still free.

How could NATO and even the UN have been so tolerant when faced with such a hellish situation? Journalists, military strategists and historians wonder about the effectiveness of NATO's military operation.

How could NATO not see the threat to Kosovars? How could NATO be indirectly responsible for the massive exodus of Kosovars? How could NATO not see the genocide planned by the Serbian president?

While NATO was trying to find a peaceful solution to the situation in Kosovo, the Serbian army was preparing to invade that region. While NATO was threatening Serbia with sanctions, the Serbian army was crossing the Kosovo border. Finally, when NATO began its air strikes against Belgrade and other military targets in Serbia, Serbian troops resorted to force and barbarity to force people to leave Kosovo.

This is the sad scenario that led to the current situation in Kosovo. Yet, NATO, with the support of American and western media, boasted about this military operation and about the merits of its powerful military arsenal, including Canada's F-18's.

The world let out a sigh of relief when the American president, Bill Clinton, announced that air strikes had begun against Serbia. Twenty days later, NATO has still not convinced the Serbian president to listen to reason, Kosovo is empty, and Kosovars are suffering terribly.

NATO countries have made a concerted effort to help the hundreds of thousands of Kosovo refugees who were expelled from their native land by the Serbian army.

But, in the meantime, where do the Serbs stand? The president, his military leaders, and his numerous supporters throughout the world remain unmoved in the face of all this injustice, suffering and human misery.

And what is Canada doing? It has taken the humanitarian step of opening its borders to Kosovar refugees. Now it must demand that NATO force the Serb president back to the negotiating table and get him to accept the following conditions to right the wrongs done to Kosovo: sign the Rambouillet agreement; pull the Serb army out of Kosovo immediately; facilitate the return of the Kosovars to their homeland; help rebuild Kosovo; and agree to the presence of a peaceful NATO or UN military force.

Enough is enough. NATO must also examine the presence of the Russians in the Kosovo peace process or find a foreign envoy able to stand up to President Milosevic. It must continue its efforts to liberate Kosovo and once again reason with the current president of Serbia who, in addition to persecuting the Kosovars, is using this war to increase his popularity among his fellow Serbs. Once the war is over, Milosevic will be accountable to humanity.

NATO must not repeat the mistake made by the UN in 1991 when it decided not to arrest President Saddam Hussein. Everyone knows what happened next. NATO must therefore step up the air strikes until the Serb president puts out a white flag.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his remarks. He gave an excellent synopsis of some of the more recent history and certainly laid out a desirable plan for all of us to consider.

If all attempts to get Mr. Milosevic to the negotiating table fail and if it appears that he will not negotiate or agree to anything because he has some sort of national death wish, would the member agree that it may be necessary for ground troops to enter the Kosovo region and not Serbia proper to arrest those who are perpetrating horrific crimes against ethnic Albanians? Ultimately, if there is a war crimes tribunal, many of the accused will be or will have been in the Kosovo region

Would the member agree that while the air campaign is ongoing it may be necessary to enter Kosovo to arrest and push back Milosevic's henchmen to create room for the return of the refugees? Would he consider that might be a possibility?

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks.

When NATO decided to intervene with the air strikes, it may have been a bit off in its estimate of how long it would take to annihilate the Serbian military forces.

Judging from televised reports, the context in Kosovo is one of a small mountainous province with very winding roads. The Serbs know Kosovo well, as they have now been there close to a year.

If we are thinking of sending over ground forces, we will need to be sure there are good guides available. We must be sure that these forces are able to make the Serbian president see reason.

I believe that, at present, NATO has taken the right steps by wanting to weaken the military arsenal of the Serbian president. If I understand the historical situation properly, Serbia currently possesses the military arsenal of the former Yugoslavia.

Members will recall that, when Yugoslavia broke up after the demise of Tito, Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina became independent and Serbia, taking advantage of its military arsenal and all the military might it had at its disposal, began to attack Croatia and Bosnia. Now it is Kosovo's turn.

This is more than a question of conflict. It is a question of a man making use of his power, a man with no respect for democracy, and particularly no respect for the people with whom he lives.

I have already spoken of the time I spent in Mostar, and how impressed I was to see so many cultures cohabiting. Now, however, the President of Serbia has decided, under the pretext of false nationalism, to change the rules of the game.

If ground forces have to be sent in, Canada will definitely have to play a leadership role so that the co-operative effort will be more seriously planned than the improvisation that has been going on since the conflict began.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is 5.07 a.m. this Tuesday morning, and I want to say things a number of members are thinking, which we have discussed among ourselves, but which have yet to be included in the debate.

First, the members of the House are not better informed about the situation in Kosovo than the average citizen who reads the papers and watches TV. I am here at the moment to debate an important issue and, despite the fact that I am a member of parliament, the information I have is no different than that available to the public in the papers or on radio and television.

As a member, and this is the case with all the members in this House, I did not have access to specific information. I was not better informed. I do not know whether the government agrees or disagrees with the information the media provide.

The media, with the best of intentions, do not always carry all of the information available and do not always present it from all angles.

I am no better informed than the ordinary citizen in Quebec and Canada, and it is this context that I must use my judgment to express my viewpoint.

This brings me to the second issue. I will express my opinion, but what will come of it? Will it allow my colleagues in this House to support some of my views, to oppose them, to complete them, or to improve them so that we can make a better decision? In other words, will my comments help the House make a better decision? The answer is no, because no decision will be made.

At the conclusion of this debate, there will be no vote, no decision. The decision has already been made by the government.

What am I doing here at ten past five in the morning? I am not happy. I am not happy about the way the government is treating the members of this House. There are 301 members of parliament. We represent Quebeckers and Canadians. We do our best to make a positive and constructive contribution to the business of this House, particularly today with the issue of Kosovo. Under the circumstances, I feel very useless and, unfortunately, not very knowledgeable.

Still, I realize that the Prime Minister wants to avoid a vote that might show the international community, and particularly Milosevic, that we do not stand united on this issue.

The result of this could be very different, because we are sending the message that our Prime Minister is so unsure about us being united, so insecure about the current situation, that he will not even ask this House to vote to support the positions that he is proposing to the international community.

There is a danger that the Prime Minister's decision will have exactly the opposite effect. Rather than presenting a united front, he is going to make people think there is a lack of unity when, in fact, that is not the case.

The situation in Kosovo is tragic. Kosovo is about the same size as the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area. It is not very large. It consists of a plain surrounded by mountains, like the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area, and is home to 2.5 million people. Coming from the North, the Serbs, led by Milosevic—and I would like to say in passing that I firmly believe that the Serbs are as honest as anyone else on the planet—have received the order to expel the residents of Kosovo from their territory.

Let us imagine for a moment what is happening. We are in our home, with our furniture, our belongings and our memories. We are sitting in front of our television when there is knock at our door and someone yells that we are to gather up our things and leave the country. That is what is happening.

Right now, one quarter of the population—approximately 600,000 people, if we are to believe the electronic media—have already been forced to leave, under terrible conditions, and cross a mountain range with winter barely over.

It is not known how many people have died so far. It is not known how many have been wounded. It is not known how many families have been split up. Nobody knows how many children died. Nobody knows how many old people were left behind.

We are faced with an absolutely tragic situation I would compare to the following one: suppose we have neighbours who are experiencing family problems and they are quarrelling. Through closed doors and windows we can hear voices getting louder. We might try mediating and bring things back to normal.

But if we hear gun shots, it is time to call the police and bring in the tactical team to prevent a disaster. Things have gone far enough.

This is what the current situation is like. For ten years now there has been negotiations. They are leading nowhere, they are deadlocked. People are dying. Is the death toll 1,000, 10,000, 100,000? We do not know for sure. I am in the dark. But one thing is certain, we must intervene and do so on several fronts.

First, we must provide shelter for the refugees, particularly in neighbouring countries such as Macedonia and Albania. These countries are poor and do not have the means to accommodate the hundreds of thousands of refugees who are streaming in day after day. Therefore we have to provide them with what is required in terms of infrastructure, food supplies, health care and drugs to ensure these people are taken care of.

This will not be short term. It will be a long time before the refugees can go back home, if there is anything to go back to. We hear on the news that their houses were burned down.

The first step to be considered is receiving the refugees. Then, making it possible for them to go home. This will not be possible unless Milosevic and the people around him can be made to see reason. This is precisely the purpose of the air strikes, to ensure that the Serbs realize that there is a price to pay for their actions, a price that will make them less and less able to continue what they are doing.

The day will come when, if we want the Kosovars to return to their country, support will have to be provided to them for reconstruction and to ensure their safety. So troops to ensure security will not be the only ones that will have to be sent; engineers will be needed as well. Social workers will be needed, doctors, people who will help the Kosovars rebuild what Milosevic and his army have destroyed.

We are faced with an extremely delicate and extremely complex problem. I truly regret that the government did not inform MPs more fully on this entire situation and the issues involved. I would be better able to form a clear judgment. With a better understanding of the issues, I would be able to make a better contribution to this debate.

I regret that this debate is, to all intents and purposes, only a show. We are giving the Canadian public the impression that we are profoundly reflecting on the matter in order to reach the best decision. That is not the case. We are reflecting. We are reacting, but the decision is not ours. It is out of our hands.

We are denied this democratic right we enjoy in the name of those we represent to take part in decisions. We have no part in them. That seems totally unfair.

I will return to the situation in Kosovo. At the moment, this country—which is the size, as I mentioned, of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region—is being shot up and bloodied by the Serbs. Why are the Serb troops doing that? Is it because they are inherently wicked? We have to really understand how an army works. As I was saying, the Serbs are decent and good people. But when people are in the army, they follow orders, and if they do not, they pay the price and, generally, in times of war, it is with their life.

At the moment, Serb troops are being ordered to fire on and bloody Kosovo. This country, the size of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, is hemmed in by mountains, village after village, city after city, street after street and neighbourhood after neighbourhood. The people are of Albanian origin, but have lived in Kosovo for centuries and are being expelled and pushed toward the borders. Some travel in vehicles, others take the train—and the media have showed us unbearable hardship—while others walk along the railroad tracks.

At this point, we are definitely in no position to intervene in Kosovo itself to help people migrate. We have to wait for them at the border. However, we have learned that access to the border has now been denied. What does this mean for Kosovars? It means they can no longer use roads to get to a neighbouring country. They must walk through the forest, through the woods, and while this is spring, nights can still be quite cold in the mountains.

In the hours and days to come, it is critical that energetic action be taken to welcome these refugees in Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania, which are Kosovo's neighbours.

Of course, this will require money and also some means of transport to bring in supplies. What role can Canada play? Our air force can bomb Serbian positions inside Serbia. But we must participate in the humanitarian effort to help the refugees. The fact is that Canadian forces have a great deal of experience in humanitarian missions.

Before there can be any thought of peacekeeping in Kosovo—this is not for tomorrow, and people should realize this—there is the humanitarian mission of taking in refugees, which is where I am sure our troops could play a role, ensuring the provision of sanitary conditions and food and, as we are seeing on television, educational facilities for the youngest, so that they are treated with respect and dignity while waiting to be able to return to their own country.

Although Canada, the United States and other countries thought they would be able to take in refugees one, one and a half or two weeks ago, the situation has now degenerated and has taken a completely different turn. One or two weeks ago, it was thought that there would be a hundred thousand refugees to take in, and that the majority of Kosovars would remain in Kosovo.

But now, all that has changed. The entire population is being driven out of Kosovo. It would therefore be completely unthinkable and unacceptable to have these refugees rebuild their lives elsewhere in the world and completely abandon their country. This would be an admission that Milosevic was right to do what he has done, to drive everyone out of Kosovo. It would signify approval of this massive expatriation of all inhabitants of Kosovo.

It is therefore imperative that Kosovars be provided with decent accommodation in the countries bordering on Kosovo, thus guaranteeing two things: first, it will show Milosevic that we are going to do what it takes to enable these people to return home, if their homes are still standing and, if they are not, that we are going to help them rebuild; second, it will show the Kosovar refugees that they can count on the international community to help them return to their homes.

It is late and I know that other members would also like to speak, so I will stop here.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to ask a question of my colleague and friend, the member for Portneuf.

He made a number of excellent comments. Early in his remarks he wondered why he was participating in this debate. He was lamenting the fact that it will not conclude with a vote. He wondered if this was all a masquerade.

As I listened to his comments he proved to me that he did deserve to be here and to make these comments. Listening to him I learned something, as I am sure others in the House and those watching did. Indeed, he has proven the opposite of his point. In fact his contributions this morning have been very valuable to the discussion, notwithstanding that at the end of the day there may or may not be a vote. In this case there will not be a vote.

I would like to ask him a question which relates to getting from A to B . He talked eloquently. He brought me right into the home of an ethnic Albanian in Kosovo who was watching television, heard a knock at the door and was asked to move out within 10 minutes. That is an experience that none of us, I am sure, have ever had and hopefully will never have. It is difficult to imagine. However, by imagining it, it is possible to feel the moment of terror and tragedy which those families suffered.

Does he believe, should President Milosevic never agree to some terms of settling the conflict, that it may be necessary for NATO and Canada as a participant to involve ground troops in order to make peace in that region? Does he believe that Milosevic and his thugs should be arrested so that the international criminal court can deal with them and make room for the Kosovars to return to their homes? They will not be able to move back unless there is peaceful space for them.

If there is yet no agreement, does he think today that it might be necessary to send in ground troops to make space for the refugees to return to their homes?

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before answering the question from the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin, I would like to comment his statement to the effect that I contradict myself by saying that this debate is useless when I am making a contribution he described as useful.

I am happy to know what I said was useful. However, I did not become a member of parliament to be a lecturer. I used to be a teacher, and the transfer of knowledge was my job. I was paid to do that. Now I am a member of parliament, and my job is to take part in the decision making process. That is not what I am being asked to do today.

I hope that my contribution is useful. Otherwise I would not have risen up so early to come here and make my presentation, but that is not what I am paid to do. I am paid to take part in the decision making process. What upsets me is that fact that I am not allowed to do my job. My constituents do not expect me to come here just to make speeches. They expect me to take action and to make decisions, but that is not what I am doing today.

To answer the question from my colleague, this conflict will necessarily end one day, because no conflict is eternal, but for peace to be lasting, it will have to be the result of negotiations.

That is how things are done in labour relations. The same applies to international relations. The parties must come to an agreement, which agreement can only be achieved through negotiations.

In work relations, when negotiations become difficult, pressure tactics are taken. People work to rule or go on strike. In international affairs, when negotiations become more difficult or stall completely, we turn to the diplomacy of arms.

A day will come when parties will have to sit together, negotiate and reach an agreement. In the meantime, will we have to complement air strikes with ground operations? Maybe, maybe not. I have, to date, absolutely no information that would allow me to know for sure. I am left in total darkness as are all members. I cannot give my colleague an answer on this specific aspect of his question.

However, as I said earlier, when an agreement is reached between the parties, two things will have to be done: Ensure security in the region with a peacekeeping force and provide technical support by sending in engineers, workers specialized in various fields and doctors to help Kosovo rebuild and heal.

That is all I can say given the information I have and, much more so, the information I do not have.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Portneuf has painted a very clear picture of the situation in Serbia and Kosovo for us. However, he reminded us that the Liberal government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, will unfortunately deny this House the possibility to vote at the end of this long debate, which started at 3 p.m. yesterday and will be than 10 hours long by the time it is over.

The five parties in the House support air strikes and the actions taken by the Canadian government. Could the hon. member for Portneuf risk an explanation of that situation? Could he explain why the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence would categorically refuse the hon. members who represent all Canadians an opportunity to vote on the Canadian involvement in the conflict?

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the Prime Minister has in mind, and I would be hard pressed to guess what it is.

But I can say I am offended that I am not allowed to fulfill decently my duty as a member of the House by making an enlightened contribution to the government's decisions. I am not allowed to fulfill my duty at all or decently, because I am not given the information I need and because I am denied the opportunity to vote.

I can tell the House I am for a motion during the debate, but the real decision is made when I stand in my place and vote for the motion that is before the House. In this case, I am not allowed to take a stand on behalf of my constituents of Portneuf. I am not allowed to do the work I am paid for.

Today, everything is fine, and we all agree with the Prime Minister that we should go. There is no disagreement between various parties in the House, and there is none between the government and the opposition parties. We all agree. Everything is fine. We do not have the right to express our support through a vote, but since we all agree on this, we are probably not really angry.

Let us imagine the opposite situation, where we would disagree and the government would not allow us to vote. Obviously, democracy would be thwarted. I happen to think that if it is thwarted when we disagree, it is also when we are in agreement and are denied the opportunity to vote. That is the point I wanted to make.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I should indicate at the outset that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Vancouver East.

At this early hour in the morning when the people in my constituency will just be getting up I first want to thank the many Canadians who have written, e-mailed and phoned my office in the last few weeks to express their concerns about this country's engagement in Yugoslavia.

I also want to thank in particular my constituents in the riding of Sydney—Victoria who over the Easter break contacted me or whom I contacted to discuss their views on this most important issue. Their deliberations and opinions are crucial to the debate we are having here in the wee hours of the morning.

I can say that the vast majority of constituents who spoke with me supported at the end of March the position of NATO and agreed with the New Democratic Party policy to support the government on this alternative before the House adjourned.

However, like us in the New Democratic Party, they did so cautiously and they did so warily. They still may do so on humanitarian grounds, but they do so quietly and soberly without jingoism and without blind patriotism.

We know that the Kosovo region of Yugoslavia has a long history of struggle. Like many nations in the Baltic region its history is both rich and complex. To understand the events of the last few months we must understand the complex struggles in this region of the world.

The majority of the population in Kosovo is Albanian. In 1985 I think Kosovo held one-third of the entire Albanian population in the world. While rich agriculturally the area has long been among the poorest regions of Yugoslavia.

The Albanians have a claim to this property and it is important to understand the backdrop here. They claim that they settled Kosovo in the middle of the second millennium BC.

However the Serbs view Kosovo as the cradle of the Serbian empire. It was in that territory, and we have heard this in many debates in the House, that the Serbs were defeated by the Turks on the Plain of Blackbirds in 1389. This is sacred territory to the Serbs.

In 1913 Kosovo became part of Yugoslavia. It is important to remember that during the second world war Kosovo was occupied by Italy. During the second world war it is the claim of Albania that the nationalists clearly expressed the view that Kosovo be allowed to exercise the right of self-determination when the war ended.

In 1945 following the second world war there was a nationalist uprising in Kosovo against reimposition of Serbian rule. This was crushed and there were many casualties.

There is no question that since Tito has died the residents of Kosovo, and particularly the ethnic Albanians, have been harshly treated. In 1981 unemployment in Kosovo stood at 27.5% and the standard of living in Kosovo was one quarter that of the Yugoslav national average and was falling. It was no wonder that rioting occurred in 1981 and there were many deaths. There was violence again in Pristina in 1989 when ethnic Albanians demonstrated.

As in all conflicts there are faults on both sides. Some writers have pointed to evidence of hypocrisies committed by ethnic Albanians against the Serbian minority in that province. There are arguments that anti-Serb text and literature flow to Kosovo through Albania.

There is evidence that while in the autonomous province within the second Yugoslavia the Serb minority felt its human rights were violated. This built anger upon anger, hatred upon hatred. In fact it was the feeling of mistreatment by the Serbian minority in Kosovo that allowed President Milosevic to pole vault to political power when he promised to assuage and avenge those perceived wrongs.

Since Serbian control there are some issues that we have to look at. In 1991 Serbia ordered the schools in Kosovo to be segregated between Albanians and Serbs. Some 6,000 ethnic Albanian teachers lost their jobs. By 1992 at least 100,000 Albanians had lost their public sector jobs, including 800 of Pristina's 900 academics.

In March 1999, 40,000 Serb troops began a campaign of what is called ethnic cleansing. We know that villages were burned and that 2,000 people had been killed before NATO began to move in.

The fragile situation in Kosovo is as complex as that in the Middle East or Northern Ireland. It is against that backdrop that we must set the events of the last few months.

The international community had tried to mediate the dispute between these two people in the wake of what had been dramatic changes in eastern Europe in the last decade. It is our responsibility as signators to the United Nations Convention on Human Rights as a privileged nation and as fellow world citizens to assist in the solving of human rights crises and to avert potential human rights atrocities.

Diplomatic efforts had been exhausted. The Serbian president refused to sign the Rambouillet agreement. It is alleged that he refused to cease gross violations of human rights that may well border on genocide. He refused to allow the international war crimes prosecutor, Canadian judge Louise Arbour, to investigate those allegations.

We could simply no longer wait to assist those who were being persecuted. We could no longer wait to see what happened as the tide of events engulfed Albanians and the rest of the world. It was time for action and Canada responded, but we responded with regret. We responded with concern while we responded with action.

We will continue to respond with determination and conviction and we will honour our international obligations. Canadians will keep their word. That is why this party some time ago supported NATO's position regarding selective bombings.

Events in war do not follow nice, normal time lines. Circumstances today are not as they were two weeks ago.

We are not even close to a resolution of this terrible tragedy. Even as we speak tonight there are reports of a train being bombed in Serbia. There are reports that the French president has softened that country's position and has moved more in line with the position of our leader of the New Democratic Party, who this morning called for the United Nations to play a more integral role in settling this situation.

Circumstances in war change quickly. To find peace in any conflict requires an opportunity for the enemies to negotiate and the proper forum for these talks must be the United Nations. That is why we have advocated that Canada call for a special meeting of the United Nations General Assembly.

Since this issue was last debated in the House the secretary general has set terms and conditions for Yugoslavia to meet to form the basis of a ceasefire. We think that Canada and NATO should call on President Milosevic to stop the war on the ground, to leave the killing fields and to agree to negotiate. If he does that, we in this party argue for the air raids to be suspended for a period of time and for Kofi Annan's terms to form the stage on which a settlement could be negotiated. This is a necessary requirement for the Serbian president's redemption.

We want peace to be restored and we want it to be restored with justice and with respect for human rights. This party has never and does not support unilateral intervention into another nation's concerns. However, if we have learned anything in this century, surely it is that the human condition is so fragile that we all have a role to play in the protection of the essential human rights of humanity.

Elie Wissel said: “The opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference”. In 1999 we can no longer afford to be indifferent to the fate of those with whom we share the world. It is not in their interest and it is not in ours.

Hence we call for a new international order. We can only seek peace if we are prepared to be as aggressive in our diplomatic efforts as we are in our military action.

I have not spoken of ground troops in this debate. I will wait until there is a debate and a vote in the House on that issue. Democracy demands as much.

Canadians responded with generosity and compassion toward the refugee crisis and we will need more of that in what I see as a lengthy ordeal in the Balkans.

Finally, I want to assure those Canadians who serve our country in both military service and humanitarian efforts that they are in our thoughts. My constituents and I pray for their safety and for their families. We pray too for the Albanians and the Serbs and we pray for peace.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Kosovo has drawn the attention of the world. No matter where we live in Canada we have watched on television and we have read in the newspapers the horrors and the atrocities, the violations of human rights that have taken place in Kosovo against Muslim Albanians.

In the past two weeks in my riding of Vancouver East I have been overwhelmed by the response that I have received over the telephone, by mail, e-mail, faxes and from people I have met on the street. The response I have had in my own community has been on a couple of levels. First, there has been the response that we have all seen in the House of Commons, across Canada and indeed around the world. That has been the response of: What can we do to stop this violence? What can we do to provide a humanitarian effort to ensure that the Albanians of Kosovo are not violated further?

From my constituents I have also heard another very thoughtful response. It concerns the question of what is the appropriate role and what is it that Canada should do as part of the international community to ensure that there is a just peace in the Balkans and in particular in Kosovo.

I have been very gratified by the amount of debate that has taken place regarding what Canada's role should be. Many of my constituents have expressed very grave concerns about the fact that Canada has participated in a NATO action that has escalated into military intervention.

Twenty days ago all political parties in the House, including the NDP, supported that intervention because we believed that it was necessary to provide a humanitarian response to the atrocities that were taking place.

However, here we are twenty days later and I think we have to say that the situation has changed. Twenty days ago there was an assurance, a prediction, that the NATO initiative would be short and effective and that its objective was to protect the Kosovars.

This debate has gone on for many hours. We are approaching early morning. Although we will not be voting, today is the time to take stock, to pause for a moment, even in terms of our Canadian contact, to say “What is Canada doing? What has our response been? Is it still the appropriate response?”

The situation has changed. Rather than the situation being contained, which we were told was the objective of NATO, in actual fact the situation has worsened. The bombing has provoked a horrific number of atrocities and a greater fleeing of refugees. Over 500,000 refugees have fled Kosovar.

The bombing has caused untold harm, suffering and death to civilian populations. It is very important to point out that in today's wars—and this is a war, let us make no mistake about it—it is the civilian populations who are the primary casualties. Even though we are told that there is strategic bombing, it is still the civilians who pay the price.

We were told that this would be effective, but we now face the very real danger and threat of the situation escalating. As I and people in my community of Vancouver East watch the news, we watch with a sense of anxiety and stress. We see this drama in the Balkans playing out with Russia particularly, as well as China, becoming involved and making various threats. The whole situation is becoming destabilized.

In today's debate and certainly in our discussions in caucus we believe that we must have the courage to stand and examine what solutions are going to provide a humanitarian, peaceful and just solution in Kosovo and in the Balkans.

We have to ask ourselves if the continued bombing of the people of Serbia and the continued fleeing of refugees is bringing any stability to the area. Evidence is mounting that the contrary is happening. There is greater instability, greater harm is being done and the NATO initiative is leading us into a situation that is more and more volatile and tense.

People in the peace movement have suggested and predicted that because NATO went in without the authority of the United Nations the very issue of NATO itself has become one of credibility. We went in with a massive force, we issued an ultimatum and then it became very hard to back down, rather than seeking out other resolutions that would bring peace to the area.

Our caucus has had very serious and thoughtful debates about what it is we should be bringing forward to this House of Commons, what we should be saying on behalf of our constituents. We believe very strongly that in terms of what Canada does at this point we should be emphasizing and moving back to a role within the United Nations, a role within international peacekeeping forces, which includes Russia, the OSCE and China. Otherwise we run the huge risk and danger of having the situation worsen daily and we will see the NATO objectives failing.

One of the major peace organizations in British Columbia, End the Arms Race, whose members are expert in the areas of international law, peacekeeping and conflict, wrote a letter to the Prime Minister expressing their opinion that Canada has failed the United Nations. They said that the unilateral military action of NATO has further undermined the authority of the United Nations, the new international court of justice and other UN bodies, and that Canada has contributed to international anarchy by demonstrating that international politics is not governed by law, but by military power.

Those are very sobering words. I urge members of the House to take stock of what is taking place and to recognize that, yes, we must have a humanitarian response, but we are also allowing a crisis to develop in the role of the UN and how the international community responds, not just to the situation in Kosovo, but elsewhere.

We only have to look around the globe at the situation in the Congo, which is a bloody civil war, at the Kurds in Turkey, at the Great Lakes region of Africa, at Sierra Leone, Indonesia or East Timor. There are very fundamental issues about how it is that we strengthen international law, how we protect human rights and how we use the role of the UN as a catalyst to facilitate peacekeeping and the protection of human rights, rather than using NATO as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy to further its own interests.

There is a huge concern growing about the further escalation of the war in Kosovo and whether we have met the humanitarian objectives which we started with 20 days ago. Now we have the contemplation of the possible use of Canadian ground troops, with no assurance from the government that it will be done through a democratic vote in the House of Commons.

I think it is time to say that we want to see an end to the bombing. We want to see a serious pursuit of diplomacy and not the rejection of every diplomatic overture from Russia or other countries. We want to see a serious negotiation take place under the auspices of the UN. We want to see an international peacekeeping force and, very importantly, an international system under the auspices of the general assembly, after a debate in the general assembly, to adjudicate and make decisions about the use of peacekeeping forces.

Also I think we want to see a commitment that other atrocities, often perpetrated or abetted to serve U.S. interests, receive the same kind of attention. There is an issue of consistency here. The media have drawn our attention to what happens in Kosovo, but we have to be aware of other situations that also demand that kind of response from the international community.